08/11/26

Safety Standards for Humanoid and General-Purpose Robots: A Practical Guide

This practical guide maps the safety standards that may apply to humanoid and general-purpose robots across industrial, commercial, public-facing, and residential applications. It explains how intended use, mobility, human access, AI-enabled behavior, operating environment, and target market shape the applicable framework, with four example pathways illustrating how these standards may be combined. The guide was developed by SRES with technical guidance from senior experts in functional safety, AI safety, and robotics, drawing on the team’s decades of combined experience supporting safety-critical systems.

Looking to go deeper? Explore our Physical AI training programs. Need more than training? Learn how our Robotics Safety consulting services support standards selection, risk assessment, safety concepts, safety-case development, and verification and validation for humanoid and general-purpose robots.

Introduction

Humanoid and general-purpose robots are entering factories, warehouses, commercial environments, public spaces, and homes. These systems can combine mobility, manipulation, perception, AI-enabled behavior, and direct interaction with people.

SRES has previously explored why humanoid robot safety requires more than traditional functional safety and examined key challenges such as controlled shutdown, stability, and scenario-based validation. This guide addresses the related practical question: which safety standards may apply to different types of humanoid and general-purpose robots, and how should those standards be combined for the intended application?

No single standard comprehensively addresses every such system. The applicable framework depends on the robot’s intended tasks, operating environment, human-robot interaction, mobility, manipulation capabilities, use of AI, and target market. The central question is therefore not only which standards apply. It is how they fit together, what each one does and does not address, and what additional engineering evidence and design controls are needed for safe intended use.

This guide focuses primarily on industrial and service robots. Medical, military, toy, airborne, waterborne, and road-vehicle applications can be subject to different sector-specific requirements.

Standards and projects referenced here reflect their status as of August 2026. Applicability, current editions, development stages, and regional adoptions should be confirmed for each product and market.

Global vs. U.S. Standards: ISO/IEC, ANSI, and UL in Robotics

A practical consideration for manufacturers and integrators is whether to build primarily to international standards (ISO/IEC) or U.S. national standards (ANSI and UL). For humanoid and general-purpose robots—especially those intended for both commercial and home environments—the distinction is significant.

ISO and IEC standards form the global baseline for robot safety. They are recognized across regions, directly referenced in the EU Machinery Regulation, and widely adopted in Asia and other markets. Core documents such as ISO 10218‑1/2 and ISO 12100 define internationally accepted requirements and principles for industrial robot and machinery safety.

ANSI and UL standards, by contrast, are U.S.-specific adoptions or interpretations of these international frameworks. For example, ANSI/A3 R15.06 is the U.S. national adoption of ISO 10218‑1/2. UL standards used for electrical or consumer product safety similarly map to IEC standards.

For workplace deployments, OSHA does not mandate the use of ANSI or UL robot standards for mechanical or functional safety. Compliance is performance‑based under the General Duty Clause and 29 CFR 1910.212, meaning employers may use ISO/IEC standards to demonstrate that recognized hazards have been identified and adequately controlled. However, separate U.S. electrical approval and other regulatory requirements may still apply, including NRTL certification based on UL, ANSI, or NFPA standards.

For most robot manufacturers, this means:

ISO/IEC provides the most efficient global compliance pathway, including the US
ANSI and UL serve as US-centric overlays, not foundational frameworks
Building to ISO/IEC ensures compatibility with CE marking and international markets
U.S. deployments remain covered because ANSI standards mirror ISO/IEC content
Duplicate testing and documentation can be minimized

As humanoid and general-purpose robots increasingly ship worldwide, targeting ISO/IEC first—and layering ANSI/UL only where needed—offers a more scalable, defensible, and future-proof approach in a fast-moving industry.

The Core Standards Landscape

Risk Assessment

ISO 12100:2010 provides the foundational process for defining intended use and system limits, identifying hazards, evaluating risk, and applying risk-reduction measures.

It does not provide a complete robot-specific safety architecture. Instead, it helps determine which additional standards, safety functions, safeguards, and operational controls are needed.

Industrial Robots

ISO 10218-1:2025 addresses industrial robots, while ISO 10218-2:2025 addresses industrial robot applications, cells, and integration.

These standards may apply to industrial manipulators and humanoid robots that fall within their scope. However, ISO 10218-2 does not address mobility hazards when a robot or manipulator is integrated with a mobile platform.

ISO/TS 15066:2016 supplements the industrial-robot framework for collaborative applications. Collaboration is a characteristic of the complete application, not an inherent characteristic of the robot. The task, tooling, workspace, safeguards, operating modes, and potential human contact must all be considered.

Industrial Mobile Robots

ISO 3691-4:2023 addresses driverless industrial trucks and their systems. Its examples include automated guided vehicles (AGV) and autonomous mobile robots (AMR) when they fall within the standard’s definitions and scope.

In North America, ANSI/RIA R15.08-1-2020 (R2026) addresses individual industrial mobile robots (IMR). ANSI/A3 R15.08-2-2023 addresses industrial mobile robot systems and applications, while ANSI/A3 R15.08-3-2026 addresses the use of IMR applications. These standards are relevant only when the platform and application fall within their respective scopes.

The ANSI/A3 R15.08 series is broadly aligned with international standards such as ISO 3691‑4 and ISO 10218.

R15.08 does not duplicate these ISO standards, but it provides a U.S. national framework that harmonizes with their core concepts. ISO 3691‑4 covers mobile robot platforms and driverless industrial trucks, while ISO 10218 covers industrial robot manipulators and integration. R15.08 effectively bridges these domains for the U.S. market by addressing mobile robots with manipulation capabilities, mixed‑mode operation, and system‑level integration — areas where ISO 3691‑4 and ISO 10218 intersect.

This alignment means that manufacturers targeting global markets typically design to ISO 3691‑4 and ISO 10218 first, and then apply R15.08 as a U.S. regional overlay when required.

Dynamically Stable Industrial Mobile Robots

ISO/CD 25785-1 is being developed for industrial mobile robots that require active control to remain stable. Its proposed scope can include bipedal, quadrupedal, and balancing wheeled robots, including systems with arms.

This project is especially relevant to industrial humanoids, but it remains under development and is not a published compliance standard. It should therefore be monitored as an emerging state-of-the-art standard rather than treated as a current basis for conformity.

Service and Public-Facing Robots

ISO 13482:2014 applies to certain personal-care robots, including mobile servant, physical assistant, and person-carrier robots. It should not be treated as a universal standard for all service or humanoid robots.

A broader second edition, ISO/FDIS 13482, is under development for service robots used in personal and professional or commercial applications.

Depending on the robot and market, ANSI/CAN/UL 3300 may also be relevant to consumer, commercial, and public-facing robots. UL 3300 serves as the U.S. counterpart to ISO 13482 for many categories of service robots, and the two standards are broadly aligned in their treatment of non‑industrial robots operating around untrained people. However, UL 3300 has a wider scope than ISO 13482 and covers additional classes of service robots not included in the ISO personal‑care categories. Manufacturers targeting global markets typically design to ISO 13482 first and apply UL 3300 as a U.S. regional overlay when required.

ISO 31101:2023 can support safety management for service robot applications, but it is not a product-safety standard.

Functional Safety

ISO 13849-1:2023 addresses the design of safety-related parts of machinery control systems, while ISO 13849-2:2012 addresses their validation through analysis and testing. IEC 62061:2021 addresses the functional safety of safety-related control systems for machinery. IEC 61508 provides a broader functional safety framework for electrical, electronic, and programmable electronic safety-related systems.

ISO 13849 is often appropriate for actuation‑level safety functions—such as safely stopping or limiting the speed or force of a motor, actuator, or drive. It is well suited for discrete machinery functions and component‑level safety architectures.

IEC 61508, by contrast, provides the necessary system‑level functional safety framework for complex robots, including humanoids that combine mobility, manipulation, perception, and AI‑enabled behavior. IEC 61508 supports multi‑channel architectures, diagnostic coverage, systematic capability, software safety integrity, and end‑to‑end safety lifecycle processes that extend beyond just individual actuators or control parts to the fully integrated physical AI product. For robots with integrated sensing, decision‑making, and coordinated motion, IEC 61508 often becomes the foundational reference that ties together diverse safety functions into a coherent system‑level safety argument.

Depending on the hazards, relevant safety functions may include safe stopping, speed or force limitation, prevention of unexpected startup, monitoring of localization or human presence, and controlled transitions following faults or loss of capability.

These functions must be evaluated across the integrated system. Stopping a mobile base, for example, may not control hazards created by an extended arm, unstable posture, moving payload, or energized tool.

AI Safety Beyond Faults: Functional Insufficiencies, Triggering Conditions, and System Misbehavior

AI-enabled humanoid and general-purpose robots can exhibit hazardous behavior even when no conventional fault has occurred. Unlike traditional machinery, these systems rely on ML-based perception, learned actor prediction models, and complex decision-making pipelines that can fail in ways not addressed by functional safety alone.

Several complementary standards help frame this challenge:

ISO/IEC TS 22440 (under development – expected 2027)

The series currently includes ISO/IEC CD TS 22440-1, ISO/IEC CD TS 22440-2, and ISO/IEC CD TS 22440-3. The 22440 series addresses functional safety for AI-based systems. It introduces concepts such as:

Data quality and representativeness
Perception limitations
Uncertainty quantification
Distribution shift
Runtime monitoring
Architectural mitigations for AI-driven behavior

Although still in committee draft form, 22440 is expected to become the primary cross-industry reference for AI safety in 2027.

ISO/IEC TR 5469:2024

ISO/IEC TR 5469:2024 provides cross-industry guidance on functional safety and AI systems. It establishes foundational terminology, lifecycle considerations, and the distinction between:

AI-related faults
AI-related functional insufficiencies
AI behavior that becomes hazardous due to environmental triggering conditions

TR 5469 is not normative, but it sets the conceptual groundwork that TS 22440 will operationalize into requirements and work products.

ISO/PAS 8800:2024 (Automotive AI Safety)

ISO/PAS 8800:2024 provides published, sector-specific guidance for AI-enabled safety functions in automotive systems. While written for road vehicles, it is currently the only released standard that provides concrete requirements for AI-based perception and decision-making safety.

Its treatment of:

AI functional insufficiencies
Dataset insufficiencies
Environmental triggering conditions
Safety argumentation for AI-enabled functions

is directly relevant to humanoid and general-purpose robots. Other industries do not yet have an equivalent published standard, making ISO/PAS 8800 a valuable reference until ISO/IEC TS 22440 is released.

ISO 21448:2022 (SOTIF)

Originally developed for automotive systems, ISO 21448:2022 addresses Safety of the Intended Functionality (SOTIF)—hazards arising from:

Functional insufficiencies
Sensor, Planning and Actuation specification limitations
Environmental triggering conditions
Misbehavior in the absence of faults
Direct and indirect user misuse

While written for road vehicles, SOTIF principles are increasingly applied to humanoid and service robots, especially those operating in unstructured environments.

SOTIF-style concerns for humanoids include:

Misclassification of humans, pets, or pertinent obstacles
Blind spots or degraded perception in cluttered homes or warehouses
Unexpected behavior triggered by lighting, reflections, or occlusions
Manipulation errors caused by ambiguous object geometry
Instability triggered by uneven surfaces or unmodeled interactions
AI policies behaving unpredictably outside training distributions

These hazards must be addressed alongside traditional functional safety. A robot may stop safely when commanded, yet still behave unsafely if its perception or decision-making pipeline produces incorrect outputs.

A defensible safety approach for AI-enabled humanoids therefore integrates:

ISO 12100 risk assessment
ISO 13849 or IEC 62061 functional safety
ISO/IEC TR 5469 AI safety principles
ISO/IEC TS 22440 emerging requirements
ISO/PAS 8800 for structured AI-safety requirements and evidence
ISO 21448 SOTIF-style analyses
Architectural mitigations, runtime monitoring, and fallback behaviors
Validation across representative tasks, environments, and interactions

This combined framework helps ensure that safety is demonstrated not only for malfunctions and faults, but also for functional insufficiencies, triggering conditions, and misbehavior—all of which are critical for robots operating around people in dynamic, unpredictable environments.

Cybersecurity and Market Requirements

Cybersecurity and safety should be coordinated whenever a compromise could produce hazardous robot behavior.

Depending on the system and market, additional considerations may include the IEC 62443 series, the EU Cyber Resilience Act, the EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 on machinery, and applicable electrical, battery, wireless, privacy, and general product-safety requirements.

Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 generally applies from 14 January 2027, although certain provisions have earlier application dates.

For AI-enabled robots placed on the EU market, the EU AI Act may be relevant when an AI system is a safety component of a product, or is itself a product, covered by specified EU product-safety legislation and subject to third-party conformity assessment. As of August 2026, the high-risk requirements for AI systems embedded in regulated physical products are delayed to apply from 2 August 2028. Applicability must be assessed for the specific robot, AI function, and conformity-assessment pathway.

Building a Coherent Safety Framework (with Safety Case + GSN)

Regardless of the robot category, a defensible approach should connect:

Intended use, system boundaries, and foreseeable misuse
Hazard identification and risk assessment
Safety requirements and allocated safety functions
Architecture and risk‑reduction measures
AI, data, and perception controls
Verification and validation representative of the intended tasks, environments, human interactions, and relevant failure conditions
Cybersecurity and operational controls
Post‑deployment monitoring, change management and re-deployment
A structured safety argument supported by claims and evidence

Standards provide essential requirements, methods, and expected artifacts, but applying a list of standards does not automatically demonstrate safety. The engineering challenge is determining how the standards apply to the system, identifying what they do not fully address, and developing the additional evidence and controls required for the robot’s intended environment.

A comprehensive safety case is therefore essential.

A safety case provides a structured, evidence‑based argument demonstrating that the robot is acceptably safe for its intended use. It ties together risk assessment, governance, functional safety, behavioral safety, cybersecurity, and operational safety into a coherent justification.

Industries such as automotive routinely use Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) to develop safety cases for complex systems. GSN provides a graphical, traceable structure linking:

Top‑level goals
Supporting arguments and claims
Assumptions and contextual constraints
Evidence from design artifacts, analysis, testing, simulation, and validation

This approach is directly applicable to humanoid and general‑purpose robots, which combine mobility, manipulation, perception, AI-enabled behavior, and human interaction. A GSN‑based safety case helps ensure that:

All hazards—including those arising from AI-driven functional insufficiencies—are addressed
All safety functions and mitigations are justified
All validation activities map to explicit claims
All residual risks are understood and accepted
The safety case and arguments remain maintainable as the robot evolves

For robots operating around people in dynamic environments, a structured safety case is not optional—it is the mechanism that integrates expectations from a diverse set of standards, fills gaps between them, and demonstrates that the complete system is safe for its intended use.

Four Example Safety Pathways

1. Fixed Industrial Robot in a Safeguarded Cell

A fixed industrial robot in a controlled manufacturing cell may draw primarily from:

ISO 12100
ISO 10218‑1 and ISO 10218‑2
ISO 13849‑1 and ISO 13849‑2, or IEC 62061
Applicable electrical, guarding, interlocking, emergency‑stop, and protective‑device standards

The safety concept may rely heavily on physical separation, controlled access, trained personnel, and stopping hazardous motion before a person enters the cell. Task‑specific analysis is still required for the tooling, payload, surrounding machinery, maintenance activities, and reasonably foreseeable misuse.

Even in safeguarded cells, perception‑based functions (e.g., vision‑guided picking) may require AI‑safety analysis using ISO/IEC TR 5469, ISO/IEC TS 22440, or ISO/PAS 8800 principles. A structured safety case (often using GSN) helps demonstrate that all hazards, mitigations, and validation evidence are coherently addressed.

2. General‑Purpose Mobile Manipulator in Manufacturing or Logistics

A mobile manipulator performing machine tending, tool setting, parts kitting, material movement, or assembly may require consideration of:

ISO 12100
ISO 10218 for applicable manipulation and integration aspects
ISO 3691‑4:2023 or the ANSI/A3 R15.08 series when within scope
(R15.08 is aligned with ISO 3691‑4 and ISO 10218 for U.S. deployments)
ISO/CD 25785‑1 as an emerging project to monitor if the robot is dynamically stable
ISO 13849‑1 and ISO 13849‑2 for actuation‑level safety functions
IEC 61508 or IEC 62061 for system‑level functional safety
AI‑safety and cybersecurity analysis (ISO/IEC TR 5469, ISO/IEC TS 22440, ISO/PAS 8800, ISO 21448, IEC 62443)

The key challenge is integration. Arm position can change the robot’s footprint and stopping behavior. Payloads can affect stability. Tools can extend beyond monitored areas. A stopped base may not make the arm, tool, or payload safe.

The complete robot, task, tooling, payload, environment, and interaction with people must therefore be evaluated together. A structured safety case (GSN) is essential to justify the combined safety argument across mobility, manipulation, perception, and AI‑enabled behavior.

3. Industrial Humanoid Sharing a Workspace

An industrial humanoid may require consideration of:

ISO 12100
ISO 10218 when within the industrial‑robot scope
IEC 61508 as the foundational system‑level functional safety standard
ISO/TS 15066 for applicable collaborative industrial applications
ISO/CD 25785‑1 for dynamically stable robots
Applicable mobile‑robot, functional‑safety, and AI‑safety approaches
(ISO/IEC TR 5469, ISO/IEC TS 22440, ISO/PAS 8800, ISO 21448)

A humanoid form can create broad reachable space, multiple contact points, crushing and trapping hazards, carried‑tool hazards, and the possibility of instability or falling. Calling the robot collaborative does not resolve these risks. Safety must be demonstrated for the complete application, including each task, operating mode, foreseeable interaction, and relevant failure condition.

AI‑enabled behavior introduces additional hazards from functional insufficiencies and environmental triggering conditions. A GSN‑based safety case is critical to integrate evidence across mobility, manipulation, balance, perception, and human interaction.

4. Residential or Public‑Facing Humanoid

A robot intended for homes, retail locations, hospitality environments, or other public spaces may require consideration of:

ISO 12100 risk‑assessment principles
ISO 13482:2014 when within its personal‑care scope
IEC 61508 as the foundational system‑level functional safety standard
The developing second edition, ISO/FDIS 13482
ANSI/CAN/UL 3300 where applicable
(UL 3300 is broadly aligned with ISO 13482 for many service robots)
ISO 31101:2023 for relevant service‑level safety management
Functional safety, AI safety, cybersecurity, and market‑specific requirements
(ISO/IEC TR 5469, ISO/IEC TS 22440, ISO/PAS 8800, ISO 21448)
The EU AI Act and other applicable regional product requirements

Industrial controls cannot be assumed in these environments. Users may be untrained, access may be uncontrolled, and the robot may encounter children, pets, visitors, clutter, stairs, moved objects, or other variable conditions.

The safety approach must account for foreseeable human interactions, environmental variability, manipulation around people, loss of connectivity, remote intervention, software updates, and post‑deployment monitoring. A structured safety case (GSN) is essential to demonstrate that the robot is safe for deployment in uncontrolled, public, or residential environments.

Have insights or questions? Send us an email at info@sres.ai or leave a comment below. We welcome thoughtful discussion from our technical community.

Interested in learning more about our approach? Explore why teams choose SRES training and how we support organizations developing safe, secure, and compliant humanoid and general-purpose robots through our Robotics Safety consulting services.